Instigator / Pro
0
1525
rating
23
debates
58.7%
won
Topic
#4966
Does the Ontological Argument Successfully Proves the Existence of God?
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
After not so many votes...
It's a tie!
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Rated
- Number of rounds
- 5
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- Two weeks
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
- Minimal rating
- None
Contender / Con
0
1420
rating
398
debates
44.1%
won
Description
Affirmative Position: The affirmative side must argue that the ontological argument is a valid and sound proof for the existence of God. They should present and defend the key premises of the argument, address potential objections, and provide examples or analogies to illustrate their points.
Negative Position: The negative side must argue against the validity and soundness of the ontological argument. They should raise objections, counterarguments against pro's side
Round 1
So the premises for my certain ontological arguments go as this:
Premise 1: Its possible that a maximally great being (mgb) exists
Premise 2: If it is possible that mgb exists in some worlds, then mgb exits in all worlds.
Premise 3: If mgb exists in all possible worlds then it exists in the real world
Premise 4: If mgb exists in the actual world then mgb exists.
Premise 4: If mgb exists in the actual world then mgb exists.
A maximally great being?
So a maximally great being in this argument is a being that posses all qualities that are better to have so for example it would be omnipotent, omnibenevolent, omnipresent, all-knowing, Etc. Such a begin would obviously be called god.
Justification for premise 1
I feel as if taking the position that its possible for god to exist is rather modest so it'd be up to mall to rebut it being possible
Justification for premise 2
We must 1st understand what philosophers mean by possible worlds (What this argument means by worlds) its a hypothetical situation, for example its possible that a unicorn exists in a possible world, this is because a unicorn is not logically contradictory and could exist, whereas say a married bachelor or a round square couldn't exist in any possible worlds, this is because they are both logically impossible, there is 3 things something can be:
Impossible: Things that can exist in no possible worlds, take for example the round square
Contingent: Things that exist in some possible worlds, for example a unicorn; a unicorn could exist but it doesn't have to exist.
Necessary: Things that exist in all possible worlds, for example some necessary things are; Numbers, Absolute truths, Shape definitions
So a necessary entity is something that can not be false or fail to exist in any possible worlds, therefore necessarily has to exist in all possible worlds. So when we talk of god (im going to refer to the mgb as god from now on) in this argument we are saying he exists necessarily, the reason he must exist necessarily is because god is a maximally great being, therefore has all the qualities that makes something better, which would include necessity because something existing is better than something not existing, for example a pencil existing is greater than a pencil in your mind
consider the following properties that make something better:
Love
Power
Knowledge
existence
Now a since the being is maximally great it must take these to the extreme so they would become:
Absolute benevolence
omnipotent
omniscience
Necessity, since being necessary would be a property that is better to have
So since its maximally great its necessary as well
premise 3-4
Premises 3-4 follow logically from premises 1-2, if you disagree feel free to point it out.
"Justification for premise 1
I feel as if taking the position that its possible for god to exist is rather modest so it'd be up to mall to rebut it being possible"
I object to this. The topic is to prove that God exist, not the possibility. Even atheists will grant possibilities. I'm to refute your so called proof.
So far in summary to make it plain, it looks as you have presupposition points .
There has to be a necessity which has not been proven. There have to be qualities greater which has not been proven .
" the reason he must exist necessarily is because god is a maximally great being, therefore has all the qualities that makes something better, which would include necessity because something existing is better than something not existing, for example a pencil existing is greater than a pencil in your mind
consider the following properties that make something better:
Love
Power
Knowledge
existence
Now a since the being is maximally great it must take these to the extreme so they would become:
Absolute benevolence
omnipotent
omniscience
Necessity, since being necessary would be a property that is better to have
So since its maximally great its necessary as well"
All you've really explained is what better is. If the topic was prove God is better or greater, what you've said could be relevant.
You bring these topics but then argue something different.
We're talking God, bring the empirical evidence that such a being exists first. Then we discuss as the song goes " how great thou are".
Round 2
I object to this. The topic is to prove that God exist, not the possibility. Even atheists will grant possibilities. I'm to refute your so called proof.
So the original premise this was justifying was "Premise 1: Its possible that a maximally great being (mgb) exists" (note I call a mgb god) the reason I include its possible that a maximally great being exists is because it'd be begging the question to assume it can, as some people object to the idea of a mgb even existing, a example of this argument is say the omnipotence paradox. So this argument isn't to prove the possibility, its to explain how that possibility leads to reality.
All you've really explained is what better is. If the topic was prove God is better or greater, what you've said could be relevant.You bring these topics but then argue something different.
Well note back to what I defined a mgb as, "a being that posses all qualities that are better to have" so since existing is better than not existing, this is relevant because its a quality that's better to have than to not, therefore meaning a mgb would have the quality of existing as that's something better to have than not to. Now it would obviously take this to the extreme and exist necessarily.
We're talking God, bring the empirical evidence that such a being exists first. Then we discuss as the song goes " how great thou are".
Well this debate is about the ontological argument, its not necessarily about empirical evidence, now perhaps you were unaware of that the ontological argument entails but you should understand something before you accept a debate to it.
"So this argument isn't to prove the possibility, its to explain how that possibility leads to reality."
So I'm waiting on you to demonstrate the reality ultimately cutting through all the rigamarole. Once you do that , maybe it'll cause a religion or more to no longer exist.
"Well this debate is about the ontological argument, its not necessarily about empirical evidence, now perhaps you were unaware of that the ontological argument entails but you should understand something before you accept a debate to it."
The topic is prove that God exists. All you've done was explain what better means. You don't even have evidence that to exist is better than not. This is according to you.
I'll tell you why you can't prove God exists so some edification can be taken away from this .
God as far people have always understood is an invisible, immaterial being. So far I believe you've defined God as a "greater being". Which is wayyyyy too vague.
There are those that take the position that the species of man today are greater than the neanderthals. If you're trying to prove human beings exists, you can do it easier than what you've been trying to do.
You mentioned reality which is what we detect via senses. This is why I mentioned empirical. At some point no matter what argument you use, the two have to meet. Proof and empirical reality.
Now how do you prove an immaterial nature is there to our restrictive bound material nature of senses?
You have to be able to prove (which is that can be picked up by our senses, the material existence, our world) God (immaterial existence, which is that can't be detected).
This is why they say you can't prove a negative. Then it's countered with the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. It just goes back and forth. The debate goes on and on. This is why there's never a resolving.
The key thing I mentioned, "the absence of evidence".
"the absence of evidence"
"the absence of evidence"
"the absence of evidence"
"the absence of evidence"
We have all this character space and this is the least you've given.
I'm let down but not shocked .
Round 3
So I'm waiting on you to demonstrate the reality ultimately cutting through all the rigamarole. Once you do that , maybe it'll cause a religion or more to no longer exist.
Well ive demonstrated it, a mgb posses all qualities that makes something better, its better to exist, therefore it exists necessarily.
The topic is prove that God exists. All you've done was explain what better means. You don't even have evidence that to exist is better than not. This is according to you.
I encourage you to go read the title of this debate, I dont need to prove that god exists all I have to do is defend premise 1, as 2-4 follow logically. It also appears to me that you took the stance that you need empirical evidence to believe something is true, well do you have empirical evidence for that claim?
You also mention I have no evidence that existing is better than not, well you seem to believe we should only believe things with empirical evidence so what's the evidence against it? Now obviously I reject your notion of empirical evidence so my support for existing being better is; Which is greater a pencil in your mind or a pencil in reality? Obviously the pencil in reality is greater as its something rather than just chemicals in your head.
I'll tell you why you can't prove God exists so some edification can be taken away from this .God as far people have always understood is an invisible, immaterial being. So far I believe you've defined God as a "greater being". Which is wayyyyy too vague.
I defined god as a maximally great being which I defined what that meant at the beginning of this debate, im not quite sure how that's too vague for a philosophical debate.
There are those that take the position that the species of man today are greater than the neanderthals. If you're trying to prove human beings exists, you can do it easier than what you've been trying to do.
Im not exactly sure what this has to do with the existence of god, perhaps im taking it out of context tho.
You mentioned reality which is what we detect via senses. This is why I mentioned empirical. At some point no matter what argument you use, the two have to meet. Proof and empirical reality.
I personally dont think that's a good definition of reality, id hardly call a hallucinations reality, although that's apart of the senses. The way id define reality is: the world or the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them:.
You also bring up 2 points of criteria to meet which is proof, and empirical reality. Which can be summed up just into empirical proof, so its implying we need empirical proof to believe in things. Well there's a price tag that comes with this, many things cant be empirically proven yet are reasonable to believe. For example metaphysical truths. But the most important thing is that its a self defeating idea, as what empirical evidence do we have to believe that we need empirical proof?
Now how do you prove an immaterial nature is there to our restrictive bound material nature of senses?You have to be able to prove (which is that can be picked up by our senses, the material existence, our world) God (immaterial existence, which is that can't be detected).This is why they say you can't prove a negative. Then it's countered with the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. It just goes back and forth. The debate goes on and on. This is why there's never a resolving.
Well this argument right here is showing how we can prove it, why not address the argument instead of going "There is no way we can tell"? There's a perfectly reasonable - in my opinion at least although im a minority in this aspect - argument in front of you.
The key thing I mentioned, "the absence of evidence"."the absence of evidence""the absence of evidence""the absence of evidence""the absence of evidence"We have all this character space and this is the least you've given.I'm let down but not shocked .
Im short of in a way disheartened in the way you'll attempt to throw away a argument without a valid reason for doing so. Again the thing with empirical evidence is that its a self-defeating idea, there is a absence of evidence for the claim we need evidence.
Now instead of speaking past each other, how about you point out which premise you disagree with so that we can discuss it from there.
"Well ive demonstrated it, a mgb posses all qualities that makes something better, its better to exist, therefore it exists necessarily."
Let's help to open this up. You've demonstrated God so we'd like to believe. So in a demonstration I'm able to witness or see the entity. Where can I see God at? Show me where to physically look in the world, geographical location, terrestrial or solar extra terrestrial location. Any existence where we can see.
It's time for rubber to meet road.
"I encourage you to go read the title of this debate, I dont need to prove that god exists all I have to do is defend premise 1, as 2-4 follow logically. "
"Does the Ontological Argument Successfully Proves the Existence of God?"
You took the position of yes. So I'm asking you to prove God exists.
"It also appears to me that you took the stance that you need empirical evidence to believe something is true, well do you have empirical evidence for that claim?"
The appearance is false. All scientists that know what they know because of empirical proof I agree with.
We're talking about what we can know . Not what we believe. We already have people believing in religions without scientific evidence so we're passed that. Let's deal with evidence so we KNOW something to be true. That's why I said if you can present that, a religion or more may no longer exist. It wouldn't be needed at that point.
"You also mention I have no evidence that existing is better than not, well you seem to believe we should only believe things with empirical evidence so what's the evidence against it? "
What seems to be to you is false. Also this is a dodge out of your burden. So go ahead and meet it please.
"Now obviously I reject your notion of empirical evidence so my support for existing being better is; Which is greater a pencil in your mind or a pencil in reality? Obviously the pencil in reality is greater as its something rather than just chemicals in your head."
Alllll according to you. Your opinion is not evidence. You telling me what is better is just simply that. You haven't demonstrated anything here in terms God being evident.
"I defined god as a maximally great being which I defined what that meant at the beginning of this debate, im not quite sure how that's too vague for a philosophical debate."
Nevermind the philosophy, just provide the evidence for the existence of God.
"Im not exactly sure what this has to do with the existence of god, perhaps im taking it out of context tho."
The definition of "greater being" is vague and can be applied to many things is what I'm saying.
"I personally dont think that's a good definition of reality, id hardly call a hallucinations reality, although that's apart of the senses. The way id define reality is: the world or the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them:."
I didn't define reality I said we detect it through our senses. Come on come on stay with me here. Also hallucinations are in a way reality because real hallucinations are real. We don't have to get into this but get back on track to you proving God.
"Which can be summed up just into empirical proof, so its implying we need empirical proof to believe in things. "
Never made such a statement once again. Why not drop going by implications and just go off the exact words I use? Just more straightforward.
"what empirical evidence do we have to believe that we need empirical proof?"
I think this is another topic I put forth that once you actual do have what's evident before your eyes, you're long passed belief. It just becomes knowledge at that point.
So you understand what I'm saying, I'm talking about knowing things like knowing water in liquid form is wet. I mentioned about water before. We know based on what we've detected of it elsewhere. This is what I mean by empirical evidence. It is observably evident to the touch that water is what it is. I know what it is based on my contact physically with it from the physical world.
Likewise you have yet to make it so we can observe God because we're in a physical world, that's only then that proof manifests or means anything.
So far you're putting forth , possibilities, thought processes, ideas, you mentioned philosophy, nature of greater being qualities or traits (ontology), simply discussing things but no real phenomena we can witness.
The word "prove" is in that topic statement.
"Well this argument right here is showing how we can prove it, why not address the argument instead of going "There is no way we can tell"? There's a perfectly reasonable - in my opinion at least although im a minority in this aspect - argument in front of you."
Don't just tell me or agree with HOW to prove it but actually prove what you are here to prove.
You're continuing to evade your burden and it's obvious comrade.
"Now instead of speaking past each other, how about you point out which premise you disagree with so that we can discuss it from there. "
I disagree with all of them . As nothing has proven the existence of God which is an immaterial invisible non physical being.
Now you limit or define God as just a greater being. Greater than who or what ? Us people do you mean?
Ok well show us where we can see with our eyes, hear with our ears, touch with our bodies, etc . of this "greater being ".
If this debate was the ontological argument proves the sun exists you would of demonstrated by now by explaining to me to take my eyes to the sky. Look for this particular object in color, experience or feel its heat. The color, the temperature, etc . are parts of its ontology but you've used them to fit in with actually making what you're demonstrating evident to me in reality in what I can see for myself.
All you've done is explained traits and tell me from your thinking one thing is better than another. That's cool but let's get down to business of proving God. If you can't, just concede that you can't and continue on in faith alone as the rest of us do that do.
Round 4
Let's help to open this up. You've demonstrated God so we'd like to believe. So in a demonstration I'm able to witness or see the entity. Where can I see God at? Show me where to physically look in the world, geographical location, terrestrial or solar extra terrestrial location. Any existence where we can see.It's time for rubber to meet road.
I demonstrated the meaning of mgb, not god himself. A mgb as I said originally is a being that posses all qualities that are better to have than to not, therefore exist as its better to exist than to not.
You took the position of yes. So I'm asking you to prove God exists.
Yes and as ive pointed out through the ontological argument, god must exist by definition.
The appearance is false. All scientists that know what they know because of empirical proof I agree with.
But why do you need empirical evidence to believe in something? I believe in metaphysical truths like that there's an actual external world, although there's no empirical evidence for that. I also believe in the laws of thought although there is no empirical evidence for that.
We're talking about what we can know . Not what we believe. We already have people believing in religions without scientific evidence so we're passed that. Let's deal with evidence so we KNOW something to be true. That's why I said if you can present that, a religion or more may no longer exist. It wouldn't be needed at that point.
You said in response to my argument that there is no empirical evidence, I showed that there is no need for empirical evidence which means this argument I provided still works.
What seems to be to you is false. Also this is a dodge out of your burden. So go ahead and meet it please.
You made the claim not existing is better, where's the evidence for that? The reason existing is better than not is because 1 is something and the other is nothing, as its just a thought/idea.
Alllll according to you. Your opinion is not evidence. You telling me what is better is just simply that. You haven't demonstrated anything here in terms God being evident.
Its foolish to say something that doesn't exist is greater than something that does exist, provide evidence that nothing is better than something.
Nevermind the philosophy, just provide the evidence for the existence of God.
The ontological argument (what we are covering)
The definition of "greater being" is vague and can be applied to many things is what I'm saying.
I gave you a definition, what more could you want?
I didn't define reality I said we detect it through our senses. Come on come on stay with me here. Also hallucinations are in a way reality because real hallucinations are real. We don't have to get into this but get back on track to you proving God.
You said and I quote "You mentioned reality which is what we detect via senses" you said reality is what we detect via senses, thats not what reality is, if I hallucinated a unicorn I wouldn't call that apart of reality.
Never made such a statement once again. Why not drop going by implications and just go off the exact words I use? Just more straightforward.
Your heavily implying it, your asking for concrete evidence are you not? You asked me in this same argument (at the beginning) where you can see god in the real world which is empirical evidence.
I think this is another topic I put forth that once you actual do have what's evident before your eyes, you're long passed belief. It just becomes knowledge at that point.
Your dodging your burden of proof, where's the evidence that we need tangible evidence to believe in something?
So you understand what I'm saying, I'm talking about knowing things like knowing water in liquid form is wet. I mentioned about water before. We know based on what we've detected of it elsewhere. This is what I mean by empirical evidence. It is observably evident to the touch that water is what it is. I know what it is based on my contact physically with it from the physical world.
Well why cant we know things through deductive reasoning like the ontological argument follows? premises 2-4 follow from premise 1 therefore we conclude god exists. If you hear some beating of hooves is the distance you dont go "Those are unicorns." No you say they are horses because deductive & intuition indicates that. You dont need empirical evidence to prove its not unicorns.
Likewise you have yet to make it so we can observe God because we're in a physical world, that's only then that proof manifests or means anything.
Im not arguing we can observe god in the real world, if god exists is a philosophical issue, not a science issue. You've yet to address my ontological argument, you've just held "There is no proof" without addressing the evidence I put forward, so please address it.
So far you're putting forth , possibilities, thought processes, ideas, you mentioned philosophy, nature of greater being qualities or traits (ontology), simply discussing things but no real phenomena we can witness.
we dont need empirical evidence to know it, your dodging the argument which is odd since you accepted the debate knowing what it would entail.
The word "prove" is in that topic statement.
"Prove" doesn't imply physical evidence.
I personally define "Prove" as evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement: which is the same as how oxford defines it.
Don't just tell me or agree with HOW to prove it but actually prove what you are here to prove.
Go read the argument I provided in argument 1
You're continuing to evade your burden and it's obvious comrade.
Premise 1: Its possible that a maximally great being (mgb) exists
Premise 2: If it is possible that mgb exists in some worlds, then mgb exits in all worlds.
Premise 3: If mgb exists in all possible worlds then it exists in the real world
Premise 4: If mgb exists in the actual world then mgb exists.
Premise 4: If mgb exists in the actual world then mgb exists.
I put this in argument 1, ns how you missed it.
I disagree with all of them . As nothing has proven the existence of God which is an immaterial invisible non physical being.
Okay so you think that premise 4, which is common sensical - although I don't exactly believe in common sensical truths - is false? Don't just give me a answer like that actually tell me which premise(s) you disagree with, im trying not to speak past you so tell me.
Now you limit or define God as just a greater being. Greater than who or what ? Us people do you mean?
I defined him as a maximally great being, meaning greater than literally everything.
Ok well show us where we can see with our eyes, hear with our ears, touch with our bodies, etc . of this "greater being ".
I dont need to, thats not what this debate is about. Can you physically touch or see gravity, yet does it exist?
If this debate was the ontological argument proves the sun exists you would of demonstrated by now by explaining to me to take my eyes to the sky. Look for this particular object in color, experience or feel its heat. The color, the temperature, etc . are parts of its ontology but you've used them to fit in with actually making what you're demonstrating evident to me in reality in what I can see for myself.
The ontological argument cant be used to prove the sun exists, it proves a mgb, which the sun is not a mgb.
All you've done is explained traits and tell me from your thinking one thing is better than another. That's cool but let's get down to business of proving God. If you can't, just concede that you can't and continue on in faith alone as the rest of us do that do.
I have provided proof, you just disregarded it without addressing it.
"I demonstrated the meaning of mgb, not god himself. A mgb as I said originally is a being that posses all qualities that are better to have than to not, therefore exist as its better to exist than to not.*
Wow, not the topic. So for the record I'm just going to get this straight from you. You have not, cannot prove the existence of God, is that correct?
"Yes and as ive pointed out through the ontological argument, god must exist by definition."
The word "definition" is not in the topic my friend.
"But why do you need empirical evidence to believe in something?"
You tell me. I don't know why you're asking me. I never made such a statement. You never quoted that from me.
"You said in response to my argument that there is no empirical evidence, I showed that there is no need for empirical evidence which means this argument I provided still works."
I don't think you understand what I mean by empirical evidence . I use it synonymously with the word "proof" which you were supposed to prove the existence of God.
"You made the claim not existing is better, where's the evidence for that? The reason existing is better than not is because 1 is something and the other is nothing, as its just a thought/idea."
Please quote word for word , that's WORD FOR WORD where I made the statement " Not existing is better". Not your interpretation, assumption, what you think but empirically prove which is showing where I stated that.
I say you didn't prove that existing is better. Don't add or read into that. You can have reasons all day long a mile long. No proof.
"Its foolish to say something that doesn't exist is greater than something that does exist"
Ok according to you again. I thought I was getting proof instead of views. I'm let down.
"provide evidence that nothing is better than something."
Not my burden. This another fallacy on top of moving the goalpost, shifting the burden of proof.
"The ontological argument (what we are covering) "
You have not proven God exists. I'll actually quote you.
"I demonstrated the meaning of mgb, not god himself."
Can't be any close to proving and you haven't demonstrated.
"I gave you a definition, what more could you want?"
Just a confirmation since you asked. Is God in this debate which you refer to the vague expression as "greater being" with a still rather broad definition, an immaterial, invisible, non physical being?
"You said and I quote "You mentioned reality which is what we detect via senses" you said reality is what we detect via senses, thats not what reality is, if I hallucinated a unicorn I wouldn't call that apart of reality."
Ok is the hallucination real?
"Your heavily implying it, your asking for concrete evidence are you not? You asked me in this same argument (at the beginning) where you can see god in the real world which is empirical evidence."
I don't care about how heavy this or that and whatever excuse you use. You mean to tell me you rather go by what you think is being implied versus verbatim what I've said. Is that so? You really do evade empirical verification.
"Your dodging your burden of proof, where's the evidence that we need tangible evidence to believe in something?"
First off when did I ever have such an onus? Is this in the debate description?
I'll say it one more time. I'm a broken record so maybe that's why you can't understand this when I say.
I never made the statement "we need tangible evidence to believe in something".
Notice how you never quote me on this. This is directly misrepresenting me.
Never made the statement you need empirical evidence to believe in something. You're just taking the light off your failure to prove God looking at me .
What I did say and it's like it went over your head is once you have empirical evidence, it's the point of knowledge you've reached. I said this about scientists. Somehow you confused that and continue to add the word "believe " where my bottom line was knowledge. You know things based on empirical communication such as that which communicates to the senses.
If you say reality does not communicate to the senses, then you just eliminated the only way in this natural world for reality to be known. Plain and simple.
"Well why cant we know things through deductive reasoning like the ontological argument follows? premises 2-4 follow from premise 1 therefore we conclude god exists. If you hear some beating of hooves is the distance you dont go "Those are unicorns." No you say they are horses because deductive & intuition indicates that. You dont need empirical evidence to prove its not unicorns."
If the topic was through deductive reasoning God exists, we can talk. If you want that topic we can go through it.
Why can't we know things through deductive reasoning?
Ok what things ?
I understand through reasoning of things we already know, ALREADY KNOW, we come up with a conclusion.
Such as what we know and see about cause and effect. Through that line of reasoning people conclude there is an initial cause or a creator or God. Yet God has not been necessarily proven.
There is no knowledge of empirical information received from the event of the initial cause. No receiver was there to witness, observe or record it as there was non existence of anything to include a thing called a receiver to receive it in the premise of non existence.
In regards to the sound of hooves, this is the difference between deductively concluding and empirical evidence. I hear hooves, that doesn't prove what is causing them to me. When I see what it is, observe it , it is proven. I can conclude or reason that it's a horse. Before I receive the actual evidence, here's why it's not evidence beforehand.
When I actually do see what is causing it, it turns out to be something that can mimic the sound. It was a recording but not an actual animal as I concluded see.
This is why I use empirical evidence interchangeably with the word proof.
It is specific and substantial instead of broadening it out to theory, reasoning, *implications* , etc. There's no conflating with weak or strong evidence. It's either evident or it's not. It's either true or it's not. This is how you get verification and not deception as one can be deceived with a sound that sounds like one thing but not necessarily what was thought.
"Im not arguing we can observe god in the real world, if god exists is a philosophical issue, not a science issue. You've yet to address my ontological argument, you've just held "There is no proof" without addressing the evidence I put forward, so please address it."
I'm sorry I didn't know philosophy and proof are the same thing.
I have the understanding that proof concerns what is made evident in reality while philosophy is a system of proverbs, axioms and teachings for guidance.
Keep moving that post . We're pretty much at the end of the road. We can call the debate over.
You say address what you put forth. You just told me I hold "There is no proof". Well that's it. What you given is not proof.
You told me what a greater being is . How does this prove God is present before me right now like the sun , moon, sky, etc?
The sun , moon , sky exist. Your topic is of God existing. But you haven't or can't demonstrate God as proved like you do all the celestial items I listed.
Do you just not get the difference of proof versus you just defining something?
What did you say initially in this round I quoted from you?
"I demonstrated the meaning of mgb"
I believe you know what proof is but you shifted the topic. I mean we know definitions exist. There's no debate in that. That's not the debate.
"we dont need empirical evidence to know it, your dodging the argument which is odd since you accepted the debate knowing what it would entail."
We don't need evidence which is proof and you got a topic mentioning "prove". You're backing out of your own topic. You're pretty much retracting and conceding.
How do I know what you're saying is true without evidence?
Saying we don't need evidence is just a copout.
""Prove" doesn't imply physical evidence.
I personally define "Prove" as evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement: which is the same as how oxford defines it."
Well I'm not going by an implication. I'm going by the actual word "prove". Which means evidence. But look at what you're doing to get out of the meaning of evidence. You're going with a different definition making the word "prove" ambivalent.
Arguing that fictional things is exist is not proving they exist but according to your definition, this is conflated thus speaking to the issue I raised prior about conflation and broadening.
This is ad hoc arguing on your part by introducing conveniently now your ambiguous definition of "prove".
You absolutely have not established the fact or truth of God existing . You can show me where the sun exists and I can find it. It exists. You have not done this with God. The topic mentions EXISTENCE of God. Not a definition of God either. Let me just throw that in there .
"I put this in argument 1, ns how you missed it."
I guess what premise means to you also is proof.
I ask for proof or expect proof and you give me a stack of premises.
"Don't just give me a answer like that actually tell me which premise(s) you disagree with, im trying not to speak past you so tell me."
I said all of them. The word premise at least when I use the term is not another word for proof. I mean the premises given have the word "if" and "possible" in them. I told you before we're not arguing possibilities. There's no "if" about what actually is. What actually is ....is fact.
You're continuing to refute your own position.
"I defined him as a maximally great being, meaning greater than literally everything."
Is that it?
"I dont need to, thats not what this debate is about. Can you physically touch or see gravity, yet does it exist?"
This debate is not about proof. Of course it is. It's funny you mentioned gravity like it hasn't been proven. How has it been proven? When I SEE you coming back down to the ground from a jump, we call that gravity. When I feel the TOUCH of force pulling me back down to the ground from a jump, that's called gravity. So yet it exists and we've given it a name to call it.
I'm telling you proof will be made known physically. How else do you know it's there?
Someone telling you it is as you're doing is not the same.
"The ontological argument cant be used to prove the sun exists, it proves a mgb, which the sun is not a mgb."
You mean proved in definition, ok .
"I have provided proof, you just disregarded it without addressing it."
I acknowledge you have proof of a definition and not God, ok. Can we conclude that much?
Round 5
Wow, not the topic. So for the record I'm just going to get this straight from you. You have not, cannot prove the existence of God, is that correct?
Okay this is a debate, apart of a debate is defining terms, so I defined god which is a mgb, im not sure what your missing
The word "definition" is not in the topic my friend.
Yes it is my friend, god by definition has to exist therefore exists
You tell me. I don't know why you're asking me. I never made such a statement. You never quoted that from me.
A quote from you:
"The key thing I mentioned, "the absence of evidence". "the absence of evidence" "the absence of evidence" "the absence of evidence" "the absence of evidence" We have all this character space and this is the least you've given. I'm let down but not shocked ."
Really seems like evidence isnt a issue (thats sarcasm)
I don't think you understand what I mean by empirical evidence . I use it synonymously with the word "proof" which you were supposed to prove the existence of God.
Okay so in the previous line, you said that you never said you need empirical evidence, yet your affirming it here. Your giving me mixed messages. And I just proved the existence of god, how he must exist by definition
Please quote word for word , that's WORD FOR WORD where I made the statement " Not existing is better". Not your interpretation, assumption, what you think but empirically prove which is showing where I stated that. I say you didn't prove that existing is better. Don't add or read into that. You can have reasons all day long a mile long. No proof.Ok according to you again. I thought I was getting proof instead of views. I'm let down.Not my burden. This another fallacy on top of moving the goalpost, shifting the burden of proof.
Your quote: " You don't even have evidence that to exist is better than not. This is according to you." A clear negative on the statement that existing is better than not existing, to not exist by definition is to be nothing, which being nothing is the lack of any properties which would include greatness, therefore god must exist as that's better. Now please prove to me how its not greater to exist, this is evidence so you must provide evidence to the contrary.
You have not proven God exists. I'll actually quote you."I demonstrated the meaning of mgb, not god himself."Can't be any close to proving and you haven't demonstrated.
Perhaps it was poor wording on my fault but it also shows a clear lack of understanding of my argument. God is a mgb as I said in my starting argument, therefore if I demonstrate a mgb I have demonstrated god.
Just a confirmation since you asked. Is God in this debate which you refer to the vague expression as "greater being" with a still rather broad definition, an immaterial, invisible, non physical being?
Well philosophically a mgb must be immaterial, and non-physical since there was a time that nothing, so to be necessary you must be immaterial & non-physical. Its a perfect descriptor of god.
Ok is the hallucination real?
If you mean the fact someone is having a hallucination, yes
If you mean that the thing they're seeing, so if I saw a unicorn in the hallucination, i'd say no.
I don't care about how heavy this or that and whatever excuse you use. You mean to tell me you rather go by what you think is being implied versus verbatim what I've said. Is that so? You really do evade empirical verification.First off when did I ever have such an onus? Is this in the debate description?I'll say it one more time. I'm a broken record so maybe that's why you can't understand this when I say.I never made the statement "we need tangible evidence to believe in something".Notice how you never quote me on this. This is directly misrepresenting me.Never made the statement you need empirical evidence to believe in something. You're just taking the light off your failure to prove God looking at me .What I did say and it's like it went over your head is once you have empirical evidence, it's the point of knowledge you've reached. I said this about scientists. Somehow you confused that and continue to add the word "believe " where my bottom line was knowledge. You know things based on empirical communication such as that which communicates to the senses.If you say reality does not communicate to the senses, then you just eliminated the only way in this natural world for reality to be known. Plain and simple.
You quite literally stated it earlier in this argument "I don't think you understand what I mean by empirical evidence . I use it synonymously with the word "proof" which you were supposed to prove the existence of God." so by saying there's no proof your saying there's no empirical evidence, I don't mean to insult your intelligence but do you even understand your own arguments?
If the topic was through deductive reasoning God exists, we can talk. If you want that topic we can go through it.Why can't we know things through deductive reasoning?
Im starting to get a little frustrated, thats what this argument is about, thats what the ontological argument is, maybe if you read my original argument - which im starting to think you didnt - then you would understand this.
Ok what things ?I understand through reasoning of things we already know, ALREADY KNOW, we come up with a conclusion.
Okay yes, and we know the definition of mgb, and what I suggest that entails
Such as what we know and see about cause and effect. Through that line of reasoning people conclude there is an initial cause or a creator or God. Yet God has not been necessarily proven.There is no knowledge of empirical information received from the event of the initial cause. No receiver was there to witness, observe or record it as there was non existence of anything to include a thing called a receiver to receive it in the premise of non existence.
ns what this has to do with modal logic, although if you want to debate the kalam cosmological argument I'm open to a proposal.
In regards to the sound of hooves, this is the difference between deductively concluding and empirical evidence. I hear hooves, that doesn't prove what is causing them to me. When I see what it is, observe it , it is proven. I can conclude or reason that it's a horse. Before I receive the actual evidence, here's why it's not evidence beforehand.
Well by your logic you wouldn't assume its a horse, there's no empirical evidence that it is a horse so your not wrong to say its a unicorn or a horse, although im sure from intuition and deductive reasoning you'd go "Thats a horse or a mule or something along those lines, but certainly not a unicorn" so why dont you conclude god exists by definition?
This is why I use empirical evidence interchangeably with the word proof.
Okay is there any empirical evidence that the horse/unicorn you heard in the distance is a unicorn or a horse?
It is specific and substantial instead of broadening it out to theory, reasoning, *implications* , etc. There's no conflating with weak or strong evidence. It's either evident or it's not. It's either true or it's not. This is how you get verification and not deception as one can be deceived with a sound that sounds like one thing but not necessarily what was thought.
Okay and using that reasoning, the oa (ontological argument) proves god exists as it follows reason
I'm sorry I didn't know philosophy and proof are the same thing.
They aren't but metaphysical truths are reasonable to accept, for example its reasonable to accept that math & logic is real, yet you cant use science to prove this, as science pre-supposes math & logic which would be arguing in a circle
I have the understanding that proof concerns what is made evident in reality while philosophy is a system of proverbs, axioms and teachings for guidance.
not wrong but there's other things to philosophy, the most relevant one to this is metaphysics which is a branch of philosophy that deals with the first principles of things, including abstract concepts such as being, knowing, substance, cause, identity, time, and space. So for example the idea there is a external world and we're not in a illusion is a metaphysical truth. What your referring to most likely is a branch of philosophy referring to morals. Its quite interesting id recommend checking it out.
Keep moving that post . We're pretty much at the end of the road. We can call the debate over.You say address what you put forth. You just told me I hold "There is no proof". Well that's it. What you given is not proof.
Well whats your issue with the argument ive provided?
You told me what a greater being is . How does this prove God is present before me right now like the sun , moon, sky, etc?
It doesn't prove he's infront of you - although I believe he is omnipresent - but it instead just proves he exists because by definition he must exist.
The sun , moon , sky exist. Your topic is of God existing. But you haven't or can't demonstrate God as proved like you do all the celestial items I listed.
Well the ontological argument doesnt seek to show you a image of god, you wont find that and if you need a image of something to believe in something then there's alot of things you cant believe in.
Do you just not get the difference of proof versus you just defining something?What did you say initially in this round I quoted from you?"I demonstrated the meaning of mgb"I believe you know what proof is but you shifted the topic. I mean we know definitions exist. There's no debate in that. That's not the debate.
Well I disagree that you need physical proof, so I dont really need to show you physical evidence like the shroud of Turin or something along those lines. (Just gave myself a idea for my next debate)
I ran out of words but this debate is practically over, thank you.
"Okay this is a debate, apart of a debate is defining terms, so I defined god which is a mgb, im not sure what your missing"
I'm not debating definitions. Not everything going in a debate is debated.
"Yes it is my friend, god by definition has to exist therefore exists"
Here's the topic: Does the Ontological Argument Successfully Proves the Existence of God?
You don't see the "word " definition in there. You just made another claim you failed to prove.
"A quote from you: "
DON'T GIVE ME AAAA QUOTE. QUOTE ME WHERE I SAID WHAT YOUUUU SAY I SAID IN EXACT WORDS. THAT'S IN EXACT WORDS.This is that disingenuous crap. Intellectually dishonest .
"Okay so in the previous line, you said that you never said you need empirical evidence, yet your affirming it here. Your giving me mixed messages. And I just proved the existence of god, how he must exist by definition"
Like I said you don't understand what I'm saying. Some of these debates are just better in real time. Text is just open to too many different interpretations.
"Your quote: " You don't even have evidence that to exist is better than not. This is according to you."
I SAID QUOTE WORD FOR WORD. IS THIS NOT PLAIN ENGLISH?
I SAID QUOTE WORD FOR WORD WHERE I USE THE WORDS " Not existing is better". I didn't say give me YOUR INTERPRETATION OF THE WORDS I USED.
" A clear negative on the statement that existing is better than not existing, to not exist by definition is to be nothing, which being nothing is the lack of any properties which would include greatness, therefore god must exist as that's better. Now please prove to me how its not greater to exist, this is evidence so you must provide evidence to the contrary. "
This is alllll your interpretation assumed off a statement I made. I didn't say any of this of what you just stated here. I did not say "not existing is better". I didn't say my position is that. You're making a strawman putting words in my mouth try to give me a burden that does not belong to me again taking the light of what you failed to do.
"Perhaps it was poor wording on my fault but it also shows a clear lack of understanding of my argument. God is a mgb as I said in my starting argument, therefore if I demonstrate a mgb I have demonstrated god."
Perhaps this and that. It's too late to waver now. Perhaps go over and review your points so that they're cohesive. You admit where you're really coming from subconsciously. Then when I play it back to you , you realize the error trying to clean it up with another ad hoc statement.
"Well philosophically a mgb must be immaterial, and non-physical since there was a time that nothing, so to be necessary you must be immaterial & non-physical. Its a perfect descriptor of god."
You have not proven an immaterial non physical being. It's next to impossible being we only perceive proof in a physical material reality.
"If you mean the fact someone is having a hallucination, yes"
You said yes so for it to be real it is a part of reality because it's real. Reality is about the real.
"I don't mean to insult your intelligence but do you even understand your own arguments?"
It's not about my understanding, it's about yours. If you actually quote me word for word, you may begin to have understanding. But because you assume through your interpretation, you build a faulty understanding of my arguments.
I hope you get that if you read this round.
"Im starting to get a little frustrated, thats what this argument is about, thats what the ontological argument is, maybe if you read my original argument - which im starting to think you didnt - then you would understand this."
I've stated my response to your points over and over. You say I didn't read so I'm not responding but it's like my counter that you're not responding to. You've just kept this circular and saying over and over about dealing with your premises.
I've saidddddddd premises are not prooffffffs. I think your worldview on proofs is worldsssssss away from mine. Sort of pun intended.
"Okay yes, and we know the definition of mgb, and what I suggest that entails"
I can tell you definitions to this and that all day. Defining something and proving something are two different things. Maybe to you they're synonymous, yes.
"what this has to do with modal logic, although if you want to debate the kalam cosmological argument I'm open to a proposal."
I was explaining to you what deductive reasoning was , how it differs from evidence. Man we're just totally on two different links.
"Well by your logic you wouldn't assume its a horse, there's no empirical evidence that it is a horse so your not wrong to say its a unicorn or a horse, although im sure from intuition and deductive reasoning you'd go "Thats a horse or a mule or something along those lines, but certainly not a unicorn" so why dont you conclude god exists by definition?"
If it's possible for you to assume you don't have evidence. Why would you still assume anything having the actual evidence to prove that thing? Duh duh duh for real. Just like why assume what I'm saying from what you call implication instead of going by the evidence before you in black (text) and white? But hey I guess that's you're logical way of doing things.
As far as my conclusion of God is not the subject. I didn't say either way. Let me explain something. Just because somebody is challenging your position, it doesn't mean the challenger is automatically in the negative. You may think that. I can't help what you think.
"Okay is there any empirical evidence that the horse/unicorn you heard in the distance is a unicorn or a horse?"
Yes it's called go and SEE what's making the sound. Then it's made evident. That's what empirical is. Observation.
"Okay and using that reasoning, the oa (ontological argument) proves god exists as it follows reason"
Reasoning and evidence are two different things. Maybe not to you I get that.
"They aren't but metaphysical truths are reasonable to accept"
Then leave philosophy out if this. This topic is regarding proof.
"not wrong but there's other things to philosophy, the most relevant one to this is metaphysics "
Leave philosophy out of this .
"Well whats your issue with the argument ive provided?"
It's not proof. It's like you don't believe me when I say that.
"It doesn't prove he's infront of you - although I believe he is omnipresent - but it instead just proves he exists because by definition he must exist."
This is a claim of yours that because a definition exist for God , therefore God exists. Unproven.
"Well the ontological argument doesnt seek to show you a image of god, you wont find that and if you need a image of something to believe in something then there's alot of things you cant believe in."
Long story short, you have not proven God. You said it yourself.
"Well I disagree that you need physical proof, so I dont really need to show you physical evidence like the shroud of Turin or something along those lines. (Just gave myself a idea for my next debate)"
If you don't need to show me physical evidence, it's not anything I can see for myself and therefore nothing is proven to me. It is proof for you and you're telling me about it. But just telling how it's proof for you is a subjective account. The way proof works, it has to be something you can see for yourself. Each and every person can witness. Otherwise we have hearsay being told about the so called proof one has. It's not proof to me unless I can see it. Think of proof as reality. Reality is what we experience. You have not given me anything I can experience myself as my experience. You're basically just telling about yours and so it's proof to you.
I have yet to be given or showed the reality of the existence of God.